LightNews LightNews
florean.bsky.social
@florean.bsky.social
9 followers 23 following 71 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
florean.bsky.social
Seems like this isn't getting enough attention. Is she going to restart discovery and rule on ECF No. 195 in Abrego I?
12 Cantú is the sixth witness whom the Court directed Respondents to prepare for either deposition or in-court testimony concerning this case. See, e.g., Abrego I, ECF Nos. 117 & 146 (collecting testimony of three deponents); ECF No. 234 at 36:23–39:9 (Giles testimony); see also ECF No. 52 at 108:3–17 (Schultz testimony); ECF No. 107 at 42:2–25 (Cantú testimony). Each witness was either unprepared or defiant in their refusal to answer questions. The Court will consider the entire course of conduct when it reaches the motions pending in Abrego I.
December 11, 2025 at 7:31 PM
florean.bsky.social
I think that's what she's referring to in this footnote. Lest we all forget, there are still pending motions related to April's "expedited discovery", including ECF No. 195, a motion for discovery sanctions. She is going to use this to help justify her discovery rulings.
12 Cantú is the sixth witness whom the Court directed Respondents to prepare for either deposition or in-court testimony concerning this case. See, e.g., Abrego I, ECF Nos. 117 & 146 (collecting testimony of three deponents); ECF No. 234 at 36:23–39:9 (Giles testimony); see also ECF No. 52 at 108:3–17 (Schultz testimony); ECF No. 107 at 42:2–25 (Cantú testimony). Each witness was either unprepared or defiant in their refusal to answer questions. The Court will consider the entire course of conduct when it reaches the motions pending in Abrego I.
December 11, 2025 at 7:05 PM
florean.bsky.social
I was very confused by Guynn's ?s of Cantu. I had to double check it wasn't the plaintiffs, because they seemed to be destroying their witness' credibility. Am I reading this correctly that it was the government rubbing it in Xinis' face that "once again, Respondents defied this Court’s orders"!?
Then at the hearing, Respondents showcased Cantú’s ignorance about the content of his Declaration pertaining to Costa Rica. As the pointed questions of Respondents’ counsel made clear, Cantú’s lack of knowledge was planned and purposeful. Counsel: So paragraph 4, final sentence [of the Cantú Declaration], do you see where it says the word—the words “certain understandings”? Cantú: I found it. Yes, I do. I see it. Counsel: What are the certain understandings referenced in the last sentence? Cantú: I don’t know . . . Counsel: Cantú: Counsel: What are the “contingencies” referenced in the last sentence? I do not know . . . What are the “interim developments” referenced in paragraph 5? Cantú: I don’t know. ECF No. 107 at 26:8–27:12 (counsel for Respondents, Jonathan Guynn (“Guynn”), questioning Cantú). See also id. at 53:8–9 (Guynn, at sidebar with Court, stating “I’ll just say I told you this was exactly what was going to happen,” regarding the witness’ ignorance on Costa Rica as a viable country of removal)
December 11, 2025 at 6:40 PM
florean.bsky.social
It's not just me that knows this is something that not only doesn't happen "all the time", but is in fact so unusual lawyers in a different case are pointing to it as evidence of the government's ill intent. It is so out of the ordinary that it is going to hurt them in multiple cases.
From a filing in UNITED STATES v. KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA: On November 17, 2025, Judge Xinis ordered the government to produce Mr. Cantú at an evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 20 and instructed that he be prepared to testify as to the subject matter of his declaration based on his personal knowledge or knowledge obtained from others. Abrego Garcia, No. 8:25-cv-2780 (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2025), Dkt. 90. In so ordering, Judge Xinis chastised the government for its “strategy…present since day one” of repeatedly bringing witnesses who were unprepared to testify about the subject matter of the testimony requested by the court “in defiance” of the court’s orders. Abrego Garcia, No. 8:25-cv-2780 (D. Md. Nov. 19, 2025), Dkt. 92 at 6, 11-12. But once again the government defied Judge Xinis’s order. At the evidentiary hearing on Thursday in Maryland, Mr. Cantú testified, in substance, that a State Department attorney told him what to put in his declaration on a five-minute Teams call and email on November 7, and that he did not know whether the Department of State had even been in contact with Costa Rica. And then a highlighted part of the filing: Judge Xinis again excoriated the government for putting on a witness who had “zero information” for the court—Mr. Cantú was “the worst” of the witnesses the government had put on the stand thus far—and he “knew nothing” and “didn’t know the meaning of the words in his own affidavit.”
November 23, 2025 at 10:36 PM
florean.bsky.social
You prompted me to do some digging and we're definitely not the only ones[1][photo 1]. Basically, every 2 hours[2] Bsky contacts a server to renew your auth. They've messed that up, though, so it is buggy[3]. Unfortunately, their latest update in October isn't inspiring[4][photo 2], but probably
GitHub user commenting 'WTFF? At 1242p PT today, bsky.app web logged me out in the middle of composing a reply! not "on submit" but while typing. even Twitter/X has never done that to me.' with 'logged me out in the middle of composing a reply! not "on submit" but while typing.' highlighted. Bluesky developer commenting on GitHub pull request 'With the fix upstream we can merge this. I'm not positive of the impact, but it's a nice cleanup regardless, and should match existing handling. Thanks again for everyone's help on this 🙏' with 'I'm not positive of the impact' highlighted.
November 4, 2025 at 7:00 PM
florean.bsky.social
Here's a link to the article in question along with a screenshot of their explanation.
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
Editor’s Note: This newsletter is part of a collaboration between Lawfare and Risky Business. You can find the full version of the Seriously Risky Business newsletter and previous editions on Substack. This newsletter is edited for Lawfare by Eugenia Lostri. Editor's Note: On Dec. 28, 2023, Lawfare received a letter notifying us that the Reuters story summarized in this article had been taken down pursuant to court order in response to allegations that it is false and defamatory. The letter demanded that we retract this post as well. The article in question has, indeed, been removed from the Reuters web site, replaced with a notice that "Reuters has temporarily removed the article 'How an Indian startup hacked the world' to comply with a preliminary court order issued on Dec. 4, 2023, in a district court in New Delhi, India. Reuters stands by its reporting and plans to appeal the decision." Neither Lawfare nor Seriously Risky Business takes any position on the merits of the litigation in India. But we have redacted material drawn from the Reuters article in question pending further developments in this matter. The Hack-for-Hire Industry: Death by a Thousand Cuts Reuters has published a report describing [XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX]
July 2, 2025 at 9:32 PM
florean.bsky.social
If Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, then why are they paying him for his services?
From the Abrego Garcia indictment: "[MS-13] also paid him for his transportation services."
June 6, 2025 at 10:42 PM
florean.bsky.social
@kenwhite.bsky.social Can you look at highlighted bits?
1. Yes and No checked for defendant in custody. Mistake or could they be playing games re: constructive custody?
2. "Arrested" checked & doc filed 5/21. Has he been in US LEO custody?
3. Warrant issued, but no Magistrate Judge. Typical?
Highlights fields in the Abrego Garcia indictment. "Is the defendant in custody? Yes [X] No [X]" "Was the defendant arrested on the complaint? Yes [X]" "If [search warrant issued]: Name of the Magistrate Judge: [blank]"
June 6, 2025 at 8:13 PM